DAC: Unliquidated, Unreformed, Unvalued, Unscrupulous

On July 17, 2020, it became known that detectives from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (hereinafter NABU) had conducted searches at the premises of the Kyiv District Administrative Court (hereinafter OASC) and the State Judicial Administration (hereinafter SJA). 

OASC is no stranger to the headlines: last year, at the end of July, NABU already searched the court's premises. The basis for those searches was a NABU investigation into the alleged issuance of knowingly unlawful court rulings and interference in the activities of judicial bodies. The aim was to create artificial obstacles to the work of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (hereinafter HQCJ), and the participants in the scheme were OASC Chairman Pavlo Vovk and certain judges of the court. 

According to NABU's press service, the investigation of this episode has been completed, and its materials have been provided to the suspects for review. 

So what was the basis for the search this time?

According to the investigation's version, OASC judges, certain officials of the SJA and former members of the HQCJ are not only involved in committing corruption crimes, but have allegedly created a whole mechanism of "controlled justice" aimed at securing not only their own interests, but also the interests of certain business circles and political elites.

Notably, on its website OASC stated that information about notices of suspicion being served on judges does not correspond to reality. In its publication, the court "hinted" at pressure on the court from law enforcement bodies. Allegedly, the reason for the searches was a lawsuit naming the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and its head Artem Sytnyk as defendants.

For its part, on its own website NABU published a series of new audio recordings that may indicate that OASC judges were involved in issuing court rulings with predetermined outcomes in a number of socially important cases and in falsifying them. 

1. Ruling on the recognition of the absence of a coalition in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

In February 2018, a lawsuit was filed by People's Deputy Andriy Derkach, in which he asked the court to declare unlawful the inaction of the coalition coordinators regarding submitting to the prime minister a proposal for the candidate for Minister of Health. At that time, the acting minister was Ulyana Suprun.

In February 2019, the court issued a ruling by which it requested from the Verkhovna Rada the full list of members of the "European Ukraine" coalition, including the names and surnames of the people's deputies.

Judge: Yevgeny Ablov

In July already, OASC rejected Derkach's lawsuit, stating in the ruling that "the existence of a coalition of deputy factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as of the date of filing the lawsuit (i.e., February 2018 – author's note), is not confirmed by any evidence". 

Judge: Serhiy Karakashyan

2. Ban on Poroshenko and several other officials leaving the country

The court said that it had received a lawsuit from a person who introduced himself as Davyd Zhvania. According to judge-spokesman of OASC Bogdan Sanin, the lawsuit contains a demand to ban 180 top officials, including President Petro Poroshenko, from leaving the country. The court even posted a scanned copy of the relevant application on its page.

Meanwhile, former deputy Davyd Zhvania himself denied any involvement in filing the said lawsuit with the court.

Interestingly, subsequently information appeared on the OASC website about a further series of lawsuits with similar demands. But their texts can no longer be found in the files attached to the news item. And, as follows from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, the court left these lawsuits without motion. 

3. Alleged interference in the competition for the High Council of Justice 

In April 2019, OASC, by its ruling, prohibited the Competition Commission for selecting candidates for the President of Ukraine to appoint members of the High Council of Justice from making decisions on identifying candidates recommended to the High Council of Justice (hereinafter HCJ). 

Notably, suspicions of the court's alleged bias in adopting this decision arose well before the publication of NABU's audio recordings. 

In particular, some users noticed that on that day 38 judges of the court went on sick leave. This presumably made it possible to assign the case to a predetermined judge. 

Someone clearly did not want "disloyal" individuals to join the HCJ. 

Judge: Ihor Pohribnichenko

The Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine establishes exclusive jurisdiction over certain cases specifically for the Kyiv District Administrative Court.

Thus, only OASC may hear cases concerning the appeal of decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers, ministries, central executive bodies, the National Bank and other bodies whose powers extend to the entire territory of Ukraine, except in certain cases.

And they, as it at least appears, are using this far from for the purpose of upholding fair justice.